NAIROBI, Kenya — Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua has moved to the Court of Appeal to challenge a High Court decision that upheld his impeachment and removal from office.
In his appeal, Gachagua argues that the three-judge High Court bench erred in law by holding that the Senate’s resolution to remove him from office could not be reversed, despite finding that aspects of the impeachment proceedings violated his constitutional rights.
The High Court, in a judgment delivered on June 8, 2026, upheld the Senate’s decision to impeach Gachagua. However, Justices Eric Ogola, Antony Mrima and Fred Mugambi found that his right to a fair hearing had been violated after the Senate declined to grant an adjournment when he was absent from the proceedings on medical grounds.
The court awarded Gachagua KSh50 million in constitutional damages, saying the award was intended to vindicate the Constitution, restore his dignity and deter future violations of constitutional rights.
Gachagua is now challenging the judges’ interpretation of Article 145 of the Constitution, which provides for the removal of a Deputy President from office through impeachment. He argues that the courts should be able to provide an effective remedy where constitutional violations are established.
He has also raised questions over public participation in the impeachment process, arguing that both the National Assembly and Senate failed to provide adequate opportunity for meaningful public participation.
The former Deputy President is, however, seeking to preserve parts of the High Court judgment that were favourable to him, including the finding that his fair-hearing rights were violated and the KSh50 million award.
The Senate and Senate Speaker Amason Kingi have separately moved to the Court of Appeal, challenging the KSh50 million award and the High Court’s finding that Gachagua’s fair-hearing rights were violated.
The appeals now place Gachagua’s impeachment before the country’s appellate court, where the judges could uphold, vary or overturn aspects of the High Court decision.
